watermark initiative

I congratulate professors Allison and Hart for their excellent job on
"The Watrermar Initiative." This is a breakthrough in watermark
classification. I will need time to assimilate the proposed system in
detail. Meanwhile, I would like to submit certain ideas which I think
might contribute to make the project even more useful.
A) General comments: Certain watermark designs and making are
intimately related to historical periods of paper production. Thus they
may be linked with certainty to those periods, and will not appear
later. Therefore, there is no need to have all watermarks in one computer
data bank. The Archive could be subdivided into subarchives, each related
to a certain period. Only as an example one could imagine the following
sub division:
Paper production Watermarks
individual (nomad craftsmanship) related to a (land)lord,
sometimes to a maker
massive craftsmanship related to place or proucer
semiindustrial craftsmanship related to producer, ditributer
or quality of paper
industrial all types
But, maybe it would be enough if two large categories of data archives
be considered,one before 1500 and another after that year. This could
help all Latiunamerican historcal archives in developin their
databanks.Of course, I realize, that traditionally sholars have been
studying pre 1500(or1600) papers and their watermarks, and therefore
bibliography is scarce on later material. But the bulk of the dates of
documentation in american historical archives starts later. There is
little use or need for earlier watermarks.
B) Difficulties with IPH code: Recently I went threw the "Catalogue of
Watermarks in Italian Printed Maps" by David Woodward, University Chicago
Press 1996. Even though a great effort was made in this book to show the
IPH code for each watermark fascimile, unfortunately there are several
inconsistencies among these assignments. Many of the watermarks shown,
are surrounded by a circle under a six pointed star but in the
identification one can find a large variety of codes:
in # 16 to 22 U1[J5/4]
in # 35, 36 [U1-J5/4]
in # 91/92 [U1]-J5/4
in # 107 to 110 [U1]-J5/3
in # 121to123,and 126to130 <f:U1{b:J5/4}>
in # 150,158to176,214/215
221/222 and 238to242 <f:U1{t:J5/4}>
in # 146 <U1>-{t:J5/4}
and I would probabily have written: <f:U1>-{t:J5/4}
I am not criticizing the publication on italian maps, but I want
enfasize how difficult it is to find an agreement even on a simple
pattern. I think there is a need of elaborating or reconsidering the
coding system, or at least produce an extense users manual.
C) Digital Camara fascimile: I blieve this is the future of
reproduction of watrmarks for most researchers and students. Th methjod
should be includes as a separate procedure and fully explained.
D) Some particular characteristics of certain periods and places:
Spaniards invented in 1635 and mantained ever after official stamped
paper, to be used in all official and private documents. The stamps
showed the year or years of validity, thus giving an excellent
orientation on the date of making of the paper and watermark. This
stamped paper before rendering useful must be considered a new category
in paper usage:"intermediate use". If the stamped paper were not used
during the validation period, and left blank, they could be used later
for other purposes, like: covers, inside of bindings, drafts, printing of
all types, etc. So the "intermidiate use" ceased, giving place to the
"end use", not always related to documentation.